Sat Narain v. Naresh Goyal and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Sept 2025COCP/1484/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

COCP-1484-2017; contempt petition; Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; Sudeepti Sharma J.; Sat Narain v. Naresh Goyal; compliance of order dated 14.12.2016 in CWP-8596-2014 (Sat Narain v. State of Haryana and others); gratuity on last pay drawn; Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; HSCARDB; Naresh Goyal, Managing Director; deposit of Rs. 19,098/- on 26.04.2017; Rs.10,005.10 with 9% interest w.e.f. 23.3.2007; compliance affidavit 12.03.2018; contempt purged; rule discharged; decided 15.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; contempt purged and rule discharged upon finding of compliance; pending application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶¶33

Sat Narain Vs Naresh Goyal and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

COCP-1484-2017

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

202

¶5

COCP-1484-2017 Date of Decision: 15.09.2025

Sat Narain

......Petitioner

Vs.

Naresh Goyal and another

¶10

.....Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

¶12

Present: Ms. Anju Bansal, Advocate and for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Ram Karan Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

¶14

Mr. Rajvir Singh Sihag, Advocate for the respondents.

¶15

¶16

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (Oral)

¶17

The present contempt petition has been filed for deliberate and intentional disobedience of order dated 14.12.2016 passed by this Court in CWP-8596-2014.

¶18

The relevant portion of order dated 14.12.2016 passed by this Court in CWP-8596-2014 is reproduced as under:-

¶19

“Now a question would arise whether the petitioner is to be paid the gratuity for the entire period from 1972 till his retirement in the year 2013 on the last pay drawn or the gratuity is to be split up for the period 1972 to 1996 and thereafter from 1996 to 2013?

¶20

I am of the view that the gratuity was released by respondent bank on 23.2.2007 contrary to the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Therefore, the petitioner is required to

¶21

SAHIL 2025.09.16 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶22

COCP-1484-2017

¶23

-2-

¶24

deposit the said amount of Rs.10005.10 along with interest @ 9% per annum from 22.3.2007 till its deposit with respondent no.2 bank and thereafter, the gratuity is payable as per last pay drawn on the date of retirement of the petitioner, since the services of the petitioner were taken over by respondent no.2 bank on account of creation of common cadre.

¶25

It being so, the present writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to deposit back the gratuity received by him amounting to Rs.10005.10 along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 23.3.2007 till the date of deposit. After the deposit of said amount, the respondents shall re- calculate the gratuity payable to the petitioner on the basis of last pay drawr by him and release the gratuity in accordance with Rules. Needless to say that if excess amount is already paid to the petitioner that can be adjusted in the said amount.”

¶26

Learned State counsel submits that in compliance of order dated 14.12.2016, compliance affidavit of Naresh Goyal, Managing Director, HSCARDB dated 12.03.2018, has already been filed before the registry, which is taken on record.

¶27

The relevant portion of compliance affidavit of Naresh Goyal, Managing Director, HSCARDB dated 12.03.2018, is reproduced as under:-

¶28

“1. That vide order dated 14.12.2016 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP NO. 8596/2014; Sat Narain Vs. State of Haryana and others the writ petition filed by the petitioner stood allowed and further directions were passed by the Hon'ble Court which were required to be complied with by the petitioner as also the respondents herein. In compliance to the directions passed by the Hon'ble Court petitioner on 26.04.2017 deposited the amount of Rs. 19,098/- with the branch of respondent no.”

¶29

SAHIL 2025.09.16 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶30

COCP-1484-2017

¶31

-3-

¶32

A perusal of above shows that order dated 14.12.2016 passed by this Court in CWP-8596-2014, has been complied with. This fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶33